Tag Archives: Animal Welfare

Post navigation

The recent news concerning a man who broke out a car window to save a dog locked in a hot car should signal a change in Good Samaritan laws across the United States.

Our laws in general and across the board should be based on logic.

We don’t know all of the details about this case out of Athans, GA. But in general, a person should be able to save an animal in distress and be protected from prosecution, should it be found he or she acted appropriately and to save an animal from suffering or near death.

It is idiotic to even suggest that a person should let the suffering go on, because the damage to a car is wrongly perceived to be more important than the life of an animal. Who could have that mentality now?

We other inhumane laws, like those that suggest the life of an animal has no more value that a stolen TV. Who could think that way in 2015? We should be better than that as a society.

It seems we still have people in charge in the United States who believe a woman or girl who has been raped has limited rights. We’ve seen recent interviews that suggest these people want to minimize and marginalize what the victims have gone through.

We don’t live in the 1920s. And we can’t allow people without souls or an ability to feel compassion to run the country.

Back to the case in Georgia, if it is found that witnesses are correct and the dog was locked in the care for an extended period, the charges filed against the man who broke out the window should be cropped. And the driver of the care should be charged.

Let’s get these laws changed and make the rescuing of an animal in a health crisis something that people are honored for doing.

I found a very odd editorial today on the New York Post website. It was one of those columns where the text strayed so far enough away from reality that you keep thinking the punchline is coming and it’s revealed as tongue-and-cheek.

Writer Eliyahu Federman calls out Senator Booker for being a vegan. And then Federman cries that Booker would have the nerve to promote his position. Isn’t that what every elected official does?

Would Federman ever call out an elected official for agreeing on Federman’s position on abortion (for example), but then slam that elected official for promoting that position with legislation? It’s just really odd to read someone suggesting that politicians are wrong for simply promoting a political position.

Federman also doesn’t seem to support a bill to limit the use of antibiotics in livestock. The writer does not realize how important that effort is.

The writer goes on to praise Booker for rescuing pets in trouble or homeless. And then slams Booker for promoting a no-kill shelter. It is clear Federman doesn’t know what a no-kill shelter is.

Quote – “This was just silly: The need to “put down” sick, aggressive, injured or suffering animals may be a sad reality, but it’s one that even The Humane Society and PETA recognize.”

Federman just didn’t bother to look into the issue. “No kill” doesn’t mean the shelter doesn’t euthanize suffering or aggressive animals. Why would people who shelter animals allow suffering?

It’s fine if Federman doesn’t like Booker. That’s politics. But slamming him in an area where Federman is not at all well-versed was a huge misstep.

Federman calls it “animal-rights extremism.” So not eating meat and voting for bills that promote public health and promoting shelters are extreme positions to Federman? Really?

Federman’s editorial actually serves to paint Booker as a very compassionate person who cares about issues beyond his own back yard. Since I’m not familiar with Federman’s previous writings, maybe it’s possible that this was the actual mission.

If so, the editorial succeeded in being a promotional piece for Booker.

I realize there have been reports of strides made in both human and veterinary medicine, as a result of laboratory testing on animals.

But we know for sure that in too many case animals have been abused – within the tests where the reported strides have been made and in completely unnecessary experiments.

My fear for a long time has been that some testing is going on where either all possible results were uncovered long ago and/or the only justification for continuing the studies is merely to keep the lab open.

A recent Reuters news story supports these fears. A group of US Congressmen are challenging research being conducted on monkeys at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) facility in Poolesville, Md.

The article notes macaques are being bred to study maternal deprivation, as some are “reportedly subjected to fear, stress, and pain-inducing tests.” This study has been going on for 30 years.

A letter was sent the NIH director that included the statement – “prominent experts . . . have raised questions about the scientific and ethical justification of these particular experiments.”

Yes, 30 years is far too long to be abusing monkeys in this way. If the researchers involved have not seen the results they’re looking for, they long ago stretched beyond the scope of their individual capabilities. We need to study human cases and help those humans who are suffering directly. I feel what the facility is doing is misguided and counterproductive to directly helping people in need.

Mental health issues have a reached a crisis point in the United States. We need people looking for real solutions.

No true scientist would be involved in any animal experimentation where the health and welfare of the animals is not being properly taken into account or where unnecessary experiments are being conducted. Anyone found to be engaged in activity counter to these guidelines should have their license to conduct research pulled and should face prosecution for animal cruelty.

Here we go again – to a ramped-up degree. Those who want to protect puppy mill operations and factory farming are out to pass a Constitutional amendment in Missouri to shut down new measures to protect animals from abuse and neglect.

But the folks backing the amendment are couching it as a movement to defending farming.

No – No – No. We are not within any universe where farming is going to be shut down. Sure – “Dawn of the Planets of the Apes” is going to a popular movie. But is anyone going to walk out of the theater and rush to their elected officials to ask for laws against apes taking over cities?

We can go outer space or we have a reasonable debate about animal welfare. What animal-welfare advocates are asking for is reasonable protections for animals. Those who abuse animals as they are being raised for sale or farming should be shut down.

What is so hard to understand about this? And why can’t some on the other side just be honest? It seems the real goal – from protecting puppy mill operations to criminalizing the acts of recording cruel acts on factory farms with Ag-Gag laws – is to protect the abusers.

It hasn’t been about protecting the traditions of farming and dog breeding. It’s more about hiding the abuses that go on behind the scenes.

The focus is on recent news out of Canada concerning cruelty on factory farms and the animal-welfare movement to improve conditions for the animals.

While the piece is somewhat balanced at times, the writer tosses out this unfounded tidbit:

But make no mistake; farmers are true stewards of the land, and displays of such cruel behaviour toward any farm animal is rare.

Just a few paragraphs above this statement, the writer noted Cargill was moving away from gestation crates. Gestation crates are cruel and not at all rare. So on this single aspect of factory farming alone, how can it be that cruelty is rare?

It happens constantly. An article or column or blog post reports on an undercover video showing abusive acts inflicted on animals or reports on legislative efforts supported by animal-welfare groups – and the attacks follow in the comment section.

People crawl out to slam PETA, the Humane Society of the US, the ASPCA or whatever group might have taken the video or pushed for the protection of innocent animals.

It’s time to call it what it is – pure propaganda in an effort to divert the reader’s attention from the effort to protect animals from abuse.

Every time an HSUS representative is quoted in an article about an anti-puppy mill bill, the propagandists slam the organization with wild accusations that show the person commenting is clueless to what the mission of the group really is.

This one is off-the-charts wacky – out of Australia. An editorial posted on the 9News website explains a so-called industry think tank claims fighting for measures to protect animals from cruelty is making life worse for animals.

The Australian Farm Institute, obviously a pro-factory farming group, spins the heck out of this one and so does the writer. The example of the sow crate is used – in claiming that if these crates are not used, it puts piglets at risk. The argument doesn’t hold water, as the piglets would only be in danger if the farmers forced them to live in close quarters.

Before the advent of factory farms, pigs lived in the farm yard and the piglets were fine. Then writer claims cage-free systems for egg producers would lead to bird flu outbreaks, as the chickens would be infected by wild ducks and water birds.

Again, before factory farms came along, chickens did just fine, thank you. The writer actually claims in a free-range system, it would be impossible to stop the chickens from mingling with water birds. Actually, if you take their smart phones away, they can’t text the water birds to come over.

Once again, we find someone trying to justify the abuse of animals – as somehow something that should be protected as freedom.

An individual named Michael Rubin produced an editorial for Commentary Magazine, which was posted on March 19 under the headline – “Are Animal-Rights Activists Really Concerned About Animals?”

The writer jumps into two huge propaganda strategies often used by those who wish to defend the abuse of animals. He calls it “animal rights” and he attacks PETA.

In reality, the movement is about animal welfare and yes, we feel animals should be protected from abuse. If he wants to call that animal rights, fine. But anyone suggesting animals should not be protected from abuse is way over on the extremist end of the scale.

And look, PETA is PETA. It sometimes uses provocative means to draw attention to animal abuse. No matter what opinion anyone might have about PETA, talking about it does nothing to alter the reality animal abuse.

But Rubin goes beyond these two diversions to defend the use of animals – particularly elephants – in circuses. First, the use of hooks to train elephants is terrible. Secondly, elephants belong in their natural habitats.

He claims elephants are “healthy and stimulated” in circuses and “often become bored and depressed” when their entertainment days are over. And he uses the typical greyhound-racing defense in calling them working animals. And then he attempts to make two wrongs into a right by suggesting the dangers of poaching means it’s okay to pull them from their habitats for circus entertainment.

The far better option is putting the full effort into protecting the habitat from poaching.

Rubin certainly has a right to express his opinion in a commentary, but this doesn’t mean he can get away with misrepresenting the animal-welfare movement. And certainly he needs to educate himself in the area of animal suffering and self-awareness.

And getting back to the headline, he does nothing to show “animal-rights activists” are not concerned about animals.

My answer? – Of course; absolutely; with a doubt. After all, compassion was a primary focus for Jesus. From the Bible to Saint Francis of Assisi to most recently, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, we’ve seen a long history of compassion for animals from Christianity.

In addition, studies are showing those who engage in animal cruelty also end up abusing people.

There is one key statement in Stetzer’s piece that I take a bit of exception to:

Furthermore, the radicalization of the animal rights movements has, I think, scared away many Christian leaders. Yet, as the video shows, that’s not always been the case.

This is misconception that too many people are stepping into. Sure, some groups have ramped up the actions in protesting animal cruelty. But this does not change the fact that animals are being abuse in horrible ways all over the country and the planet.

I’m not at all accusing Stetzer here, but the phrase “animal rights movement” usually comes from the crowd who wants to shut down any progress in protecting animals from cruelty. These folks hate on groups like the Humane Society of the US or the ASPCA, in an effort to discredit anyone who wants to protect animals from abuse.

And in so many cases, the effort comes from those with a monetary stake in defending industries from any regulations.

But I should focus back on Stetzer’s main theme. Yes – Christians and those from all religious affiliations should care about animal welfare. Compassion should be a primary focus of all religions. And compassion should not have a such a narrow focus that it is limited to one species.

Who could reasonably state, on religious grounds or by any standards, that we should not care about the suffering of innocent people and animals? Of course we should care.